Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
RavenHawk

The Practical meaning of Socialism

102 posts in this topic

Well that might explain why it seems edited down to look more like sensational alarmism by a republican rather than a commercial with substance. It just comes off as too simplified. I know you're from Australia but in case you don't know Michael Moore hates republicans.

its still propaganda.. regardless.. and is just a small point in how Americans have been brainwashed with the socialism issue.. the rest of the first world just doesnt understand this American socialism issue.. its complete brainwashing..

yes, i know Michael Moore is anti republicans.. smart guy!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its still propaganda.. regardless.. and is just a small point in how Americans have been brainwashed with the socialism issue.. the rest of the first world just doesnt understand this American socialism issue.. its complete brainwashing..

yes, i know Michael Moore is anti republicans.. smart guy!

Well it has to do with american exceptionalism. I found this and maybe it'll shed some light on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

In June 1927 Jay Lovestone, a leader of the Communist Party in America and soon to be named General Secretary, described America's economic and social uniqueness. He noted the increasing strength of American capitalism, and the country's "tremendous reserve power"; a strength and power which he said prevented Communist revolution.[23] In 1929, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, disagreeing that America was so resistant to revolution, called Lovestone's ideas "the heresy of American exceptionalism"[24]—the first time that the specific term "American exceptionalism" was used.[25] In the 1930s, academicians in the U.S. redefined American exceptionalism as befitting a nation that was to lead the world, with the newer United States ready to serve the older European societies as an example of a liberated future free from Marxism and socialism.[24] More recently, socialists and other writers have tried to discover or describe this exceptionalism of the U.S. within and outside its borders.[26]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its still propaganda.. regardless.. and is just a small point in how Americans have been brainwashed with the socialism issue.. the rest of the first world just doesnt understand this American socialism issue.. its complete brainwashing..

What isn’t propaganda? Is it that we are brainwashed or enlightened? If American’s are then enlightened then that means that the rest of the world is brainwashed and deeply so. If you consider that most of the world up until just a few generations ago were all under the rule of Monarchies, which is a form of rule that you hear Reagan speak off. So, is it much of a brainwashing job to move such populations from Monarchy to Socialism? It would seem to be an easy fit. America broke away from Monarchy over two hundred years ago and we became accustomed to freedom. Socialism is therefore still fairly alien to most Americans although it has been intertwined in our lives for perhaps that last century. And there are things in our system now that we really don’t understand is more Socialist than not and that is perhaps why Europeans scratch their heads at us. But it’s still not too late for us to reverse the course that the rest of the world has taken and heed Reagan’s warning and remain free.

BTW, I found this PSA which supports my op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue semantics, because you've shown time and time again that it isn't your strong suit.

Oh really? Please continue.

I think my point is highly relevant. You act like you're the most brilliant mind on the forum,

Really? I act like a person that writes with conviction and passion. I think the truth is that I threaten your ego. This is all a game for you. At least that has been my experiences with the like. I see these boards a bit more serious than most. It’s not just a place to BS, but to share different ideas and points of view. I expect the serious participant to at least try to understand – to be curious.

and that any failure of the reader to comprehend your posts is their fault, not yours.

Well, what do you call when someone (like me) writes something clearly in various and multiple ways and the reader still doesn’t understand? Uhm? It’s not my problem. But the question becomes, is the reader unwilling to understand or incapable of understanding? If you disagree with me, that’s fine but don’t act like an ignorant slob and say I’m wrong when you, yourself won’t even make an attempt to so show that you understand. All you and others can do is harp on semantics and definitions, but you still lack understanding. Several here have already shown that they are curious and willing to understand.

In fact I'd go so far to say that you sound just like college socialists yourself.

Boy, you are full of it today. I do tend to write in a terse manner. I do try to make things black & white and if I can’t do that, then reduce the shades of gray. That is probably where you have problems identifying my semantics. Also, before I post most of the time, I try to consider what the responses of my detractors (as another poster said) and add on a comment to counter your would be response. And when I do that, somebody still responds. That’s another indication that they aren’t trying to understand. That is probably another source of your confusion.

You do raise good points from time to time,

Really? just from time to time… Then I guess I can’t say that I do twice more than you do because twice nothing is still nothing.

but you tend to go about it in a very undiplomatic manner.

I just write them the way I see them. I have no use for diplomacy when dealing with stupidity. I know I push the limits at times, but “never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”. I try to walk away before then and I’m getting real close with you.

Proverbs 26:4-5

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

The Democrats are capitalists too,

Over taxation and over regulation makes them anything else but capitalists. That’s not rocket science. It doesn’t take a brilliant mind to recognize that. The Democrat Party no longer exists anyway. It is the Socialist Party of America. ‘Democrat’ is just a label of convenience.

the fact that Obama continued with the bailouts and didn't allow the economy to crash is proof of that.

The matter of the fact is that Bush should have never taken the advice of the Socialists to begin the bailout. As Bush issued a measured amount, Obama gave hand-over-fist. Nothing is too big to fail. If you hadn’t noticed, the economy did crash. It was when Frank & Dodd knocked the legs out from under it. What sectors collapsed? Who were in charge of those sectors in Congress? Just follow the paper trail. Then Obama throwing more money at the auto industry just made the collapse worse.

Yes GM was saved for the time being but the fact is, is that if the reasons for GM’s failure aren’t fixed (and there are no indications that they were), it’ll be on the doorstep of bankruptcy once again in a few years. The American people have already lost $50 billion on that deal. It would have been better for everyone for it to have gone through bankruptcy in the first place.

What Socialists don’t understand is that failure is a very important part of a healthy Capitalist system. Milton Friedman perhaps saw it as more important. (

) Most of the companies that were forced to take TARP in the frenzy didn’t even need it. They turned around and gave their CEOs bonuses and there has been no stipulation to pay it back even though many have returned it (to save face, they call it ‘paid back’).

Welfare is also a capitalist idea - that money gets spent, even if its on frivilous things like iPhones and Xboxes which stimulates the economy further.

I have to disagree. Our founding fathers considered welfare as taking care of the widow and orphan (emphasis – ONLY those two groups). Today, it is the philosophy of dependency and dole. Capitalism isn’t just about spending or making money. It’s a philosophy of wealth creation and improving one’s situation. Since I brought up Friedman, I would highly suggest you view his “Freedom to Choose” series which has been on youtube for several years now. It is 10 1-hour episodes. This was 30 years ago. Things have changed to some degree but these shows are still relevant and things remain the same.

If you are not serious or don’t want to be inspired, please don’t watch them. Especially don’t watch them if you think they are going to be over your head. Perhaps it would be best to start a thread on them?? Ouch! That would mean I should go review them again myself…. I don’t have the time, but I would like to watch comments from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the overall subject of the post- I feel that you have to use terminology in it's correct context during discussions and debates or it diminishes your argument. If a car mechanic insists on calling fuel injectors in a diesel engine "spark plugs" because the fit into the cylinder head and are part of the combustion cycle (making them practically the same thing!). I would think that he was uneducated about his subject and discount his arguments (and not take my car to him to be fixed, for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailouts are not "SOCIALISTIC" .... they are the result of the Bailees having control of our government. Were the bailouts regulated by the community as a whole?

socialism |ˈsōSHəˌlizəm|nouna political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that themeans of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through a bit of Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser and came upon these words: Our civilization is still in a middle stage, scarcely beast, in that it is no longer wholly guided by instinct, scarcely human in that it is not yet wholly guided by reason.

Wonder if that still applies today, a century later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing hasn't made sense to me is the rich are a small percentage who rely on capitalism to keep their riches. They don't want people to just receive entitlements they didn't work for like universal health care etc, but doesn't that risk the whole republic by thinking that way? A large population who do not hold wealth are going to become very bitter towards those that are wealthy, and the population of those people with out wealth are either going to demand entitlements or revolt. To avoid that revolt you would think the rich would be for a more socialist ideology for anyone other than themselves just so keep their goodies safe. Yet here we have the Republicans here in the US so against entitlements, blaming the outcome of the election on the "gift basket" Obama supposedly offered up. With out the government helping those getting very little, wouldn't those people target the rich? The Republicans have drawn a line in the sand about the fiscal cliff, drawn a line in the sand about taxing the rich but refuse to offer up help to those in need. This just seems like a ticking time bomb, and is it all in the name of stopping socialism?

Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing hasn't made sense to me is the rich are a small percentage who rely on capitalism to keep their riches. They don't want people to just receive entitlements they didn't work for like universal health care etc, but doesn't that risk the whole republic by thinking that way? A large population who do not hold wealth are going to become very bitter towards those that are wealthy, and the population of those people with out wealth are either going to demand entitlements or revolt. To avoid that revolt you would think the rich would be for a more socialist ideology for anyone other than themselves just so keep their goodies safe. Yet here we have the Republicans here in the US so against entitlements, blaming the outcome of the election on the "gift basket" Obama supposedly offered up. With out the government helping those getting very little, wouldn't those people target the rich? The Republicans have drawn a line in the sand about the fiscal cliff, drawn a line in the sand about taxing the rich but refuse to offer up help to those in need. This just seems like a ticking time bomb, and is it all in the name of stopping socialism?

Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

Basically, all social systems work as long as the majority benefits from it, and it is quite irrelevant what you call it. What does not work is that a minority group (for whatever reason) is the sole beneficiary of the system. That ends in revolution, no matter if capitalism. socialism or communism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the overall subject of the post- I feel that you have to use terminology in it's correct context during discussions and debates or it diminishes your argument.

Well, that’s been the point of the op, I have been using the correct context. It’s not the differences but the similarities. And it’s the similarities that matter.

If a car mechanic insists on calling fuel injectors in a diesel engine "spark plugs" because the fit into the cylinder head and are part of the combustion cycle (making them practically the same thing!). I would think that he was uneducated about his subject and discount his arguments (and not take my car to him to be fixed, for that matter).

That is certainly an analogy in the genre but it is a poor example. It is more like Advil and Bayer. One is ibuprofen and the other is acetylsalicylic acid. They are two different drugs but people use them for pain relief. Some can’t tolerate one or the other, but they achieve the same goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailouts are not "SOCIALISTIC" .... they are the result of the Bailees having control of our government. Were the bailouts regulated by the community as a whole?

Yes, bailouts are Socialistic. It is a form of government dependency. Corporations don’t have that much control but the control they do have is because of Socialism. Socialism is based in the rule of one or the few and a few corporations have the ability to compete for that power. If we would put our trust into the invisible hand then corporations wouldn’t be trying to control government because government wouldn’t have that kind power to bestow redistributed wealth.

socialism |ˈsōSHəˌlizəm|nouna political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that themeans of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

And you miss the most important part. The community is ruled by the one or the few and on occasion by the mob. Individual liberty is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing hasn't made sense to me is the rich are a small percentage who rely on capitalism to keep their riches. They don't want people to just receive entitlements they didn't work for like universal health care etc, but doesn't that risk the whole republic by thinking that way? A large population who do not hold wealth are going to become very bitter towards those that are wealthy, and the population of those people with out wealth are either going to demand entitlements or revolt. To avoid that revolt you would think the rich would be for a more socialist ideology for anyone other than themselves just so keep their goodies safe. Yet here we have the Republicans here in the US so against entitlements, blaming the outcome of the election on the "gift basket" Obama supposedly offered up. With out the government helping those getting very little, wouldn't those people target the rich? The Republicans have drawn a line in the sand about the fiscal cliff, drawn a line in the sand about taxing the rich but refuse to offer up help to those in need. This just seems like a ticking time bomb, and is it all in the name of stopping socialism?

Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

That's not entirely true. Republicans, conservatives, libertarians are not purely against entitlements. They're against handouts. They're against affirmative action which are entitlements simply for being alive. We believe in helping when in need, not giving just because. We believe in a hand up not a hand out. For those truly in need there should always be a way to obtain assistance courtesy of fellow tax payers. That's just what a good, modern, 1st world civilization does and can do. The arguement is that entitlements need reformed. Affirmative action needs to disappear. Labeling everybody into a "special group" is divisive and intentionally so. We should all just be Americans. Equal rights aren't equal rights when only certain people have access to those rights. If a black guy and a white guy with near identical circumstances apply for assistance chances are good that the black guy will get it and the white guy won't. It happened to a friend of mine and the clerk actually told him he'd have been approved if he weren't white. Outrageous! The black guy was never a slave and likely was never truly oppressed due to decades old civil rights laws. So why do we have to keep paying for the sins of the past to people who were never affected by it. Affirmative action sucks and the only "group" of people whom I would never complain about it going towards is native Americans and even then there has to be limits set at some point. People who pop out kids simply for a government check, that needs to end. Those types are a drain on society and a drain on the resources that those truly in need need. Multigenerational welfare families need to end. They too are a drain on everybody. People who go through 99 weeks of unemployment, which is also absurd and demotivational, and don't get a job and then find a way to get more government assistance had better have a damn good reason for doing so rather than just because they can. These types of things need reformed. Nobody wants to be rid of entitlements. It's just that if you don't need it then you aren't entitled to it. It must be purely circumstantial and within good reason. I believe that if you are between 18-65ish in general good health there is absolutely no reason to steal because if you're physically and mentally able and you are knowingly applying for benefits due to outright laziness and a warped sense if entitlement then you are stealing and I know there are circumstances when the Feds will catch you and make you pay it back but those incidences are far to few compared to the amount of waste they could be eliminating from the get go. It's about reform, not eliminating the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny but is that really a commercial. Feels like there is some missing context. There could've possibly been some more elaboration. Otherwise, that's just an alarming PSA. Not hat I don't agree with it but those less informed might be scratching their heads over that clip.

It's from the paranoid ravings Reagan did on behalf of the AMA in opposing the original Medicare legislation via Operation Coffee Cup in the early '60s. He predicted that if Medicare passed, the government would tell doctors which towns they could and could not live in. Because it's socialism, dontchaknow. It's things like this that make those who rant against "socialism" sound like lunatics.

But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, bailouts are Socialistic. It is a form of government dependency. Corporations don't have that much control but the control they do have is because of Socialism. Socialism is based in the rule of one or the few and a few corporations have the ability to compete for that power. If we would put our trust into the invisible hand then corporations wouldn't be trying to control government because government wouldn't have that kind power to bestow redistributed wealth.

And you miss the most important part. The community is ruled by the one or the few and on occasion by the mob. Individual liberty is limited.

Exactly my point. .. our community is being "ruled" by the few ... instead of the many. And... Communal liberty is being usurped by the few.. Yes government is the means to that end. So, what is taking place doesn't fit the known description and understanding of Socialism .. no matter how badly you want it to.

Edited by lightly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's been the point of the op, I have been using the correct context. It's not the differences but the similarities. And it's the similarities that matter.

That is certainly an analogy in the genre but it is a poor example. It is more like Advil and Bayer. One is ibuprofen and the other is acetylsalicylic acid. They are two different drugs but people use them for pain relief. Some can't tolerate one or the other, but they achieve the same goal.

This is only furthuring my point. Advil and Bayer are completely different compounds that block pain in different ways. If a doctor was discussing this with his colleagues and was calling ibruprofen "Bayer", wouldn't they think he was a little inept and possibly prescribing the wrong painkiller to patients with poor tolerance to ibruprofen/acetylsalicylic acid?

Exchanging word based on their similarities might work for the common man who actually don't have to deal with the subject they are discussing. That luxury isn't available to people who's credibility relies on their knowledge of the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only furthuring my point. Advil and Bayer are completely different compounds that block pain in different ways. If a doctor was discussing this with his colleagues and was calling ibruprofen "Bayer", wouldn't they think he was a little inept and possibly prescribing the wrong painkiller to patients with poor tolerance to ibruprofen/acetylsalicylic acid?

Actually, it is furthering my point and this is why. Of course, a doctor wouldn’t be conferring with his colleagues calling ibuprofen “Bayer” or even “aspirin”, but as a pain killer. Again, when speaking of Oligarchies, you won’t call Nazism “Communism” but you would call it Authoritarian or perhaps Socialist, especially if the context has been identified as such, which it has.

Exchanging word based on their similarities might work for the common man who actually don't have to deal with the subject they are discussing. That luxury isn't available to people who's credibility relies on their knowledge of the subject.

You’re still trying to argue semantics and definitions instead of understanding substance. This gibberish is just another indicator. I call a spade a spade and that seems to insult your sensibilities because you’ve spent much of your time convincing yourself that European Socialism is an equivalent to the American form of government when it is really just like any other authoritarian form. Liberty is lost whether it be a Police State or coerced in the gilded gage of a Socialist Democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly my point. .. our community is being "ruled" by the few ... instead of the many.

Except that rule by the many is just as bad. A Republic is the rule of law. Our leaders are suppose to have restrictions placed on them by the Constitution. But they have always tried to push the outside of the envelope. Sometimes it worked out for the best but most of the time it is an infringement on liberty. Case in point, Obamacare has been more than just an infringement. It is an all out assault and violation on our liberty.

And... Communal liberty is being usurped by the few..

Liberty is individual, not communal. Shitters are communal.

Yes government is the means to that end. So, what is taking place doesn't fit the known description and understanding of Socialism .. no matter how badly you want it to.

I’m not using academic descriptions. I thought I was clear on that. I’m using reality. Socialism is not a hippie commune. Socialism is still dependent on the rule of the one or the few. The longer this goes on, the more power the ruling elite grabs from the people. We do need leaders and leadership but the Constitution establishes leadership and not rule. Obama is ruling, not offering leadership. The life of a Community Organizer…

Corporations do not have that much power. The American Robber Barons came close. Although, without them, this country wouldn’t have been as great as it became because of raw Capitalism. Yes, there were abuses; industrialization was still new. It was a mixed bag with them. The History Channel series (The Men Who Built America) is excellent. That is the one time that unions and the government came together and did something right, to fight for the Rights of the worker. But now both have become too Socialistic. Corporations are no threat to a well educated consumer. Money controls the corporations. The consumer uses its power of choice to drive the market which controls the money.

I wonder if what you mean are not corporations but something like the Bavarian Illuminati? Men who have gone beyond corporations?? Whether or not they exist, it’s clear that men like the Rothchilds do. Perhaps the Bilderberg group is one? And if that is the case, then Obama may be their puppet. These are groups to which it doesn’t matter what the government type is. The following controversial films help explain. Corporations are only based on the greed of money. These films talk about the raw unadulterated greed of power which finds a home in Totalitarianism or the Socialistic Democracy. Its power is limited in a Constitutional Republic with no Federal Reserve. That is why the Socialist Party of America has been hard at work trying to gut the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOZ2l6UNY34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberty is individual, not communal.

In anarchy. .. otherwise you need to organize in some way to provide for shared, or communal, liberties . That is the purported reason for our Republic, in which, the rule of law is servant, and master, of All ?

... I just said that the problem is that "our community is being ruled by the few"

In your reply: "Socialism is still dependent on the rule of the one or the few. The longer this goes on, the more power the ruling elite grabs from the people."

We are describing the same problem... You are calling it "SOCIALISM!" .. and i'm calling it corruption, basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it is furthering my point and this is why. Of course, a doctor wouldn't be conferring with his colleagues calling ibuprofen "Bayer" or even "aspirin", but as a pain killer. Again, when speaking of Oligarchies, you won't call Nazism "Communism" but you would call it Authoritarian or perhaps Socialist, especially if the context has been identified as such, which it has.

Here you mixed Oligarchies, Nazism, Authoritarianism, and Socialism.

You're still trying to argue semantics and definitions instead of understanding substance. This gibberish is just another indicator. I call a spade a spade and that seems to insult your sensibilities because you've spent much of your time convincing yourself that European Socialism is an equivalent to the American form of government when it is really just like any other authoritarian form. Liberty is lost whether it be a Police State or coerced in the gilded gage of a Socialist Democracy.

You keep calling a club a spade and I never said anything America being a European Socialist country. I just plainly said people keep using words, in this case socialism, incorrectly and expect people to take them seriously, when it fact it hurts their credibility.

Edited by Gromdor
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not entirely true. Republicans, conservatives, libertarians are not purely against entitlements. They're against handouts. They're against affirmative action which are entitlements simply for being alive. We believe in helping when in need, not giving just because. We believe in a hand up not a hand out. For those truly in need there should always be a way to obtain assistance courtesy of fellow tax payers. That's just what a good, modern, 1st world civilization does and can do. The arguement is that entitlements need reformed. Affirmative action needs to disappear. Labeling everybody into a "special group" is divisive and intentionally so. We should all just be Americans. Equal rights aren't equal rights when only certain people have access to those rights. If a black guy and a white guy with near identical circumstances apply for assistance chances are good that the black guy will get it and the white guy won't. It happened to a friend of mine and the clerk actually told him he'd have been approved if he weren't white. Outrageous! The black guy was never a slave and likely was never truly oppressed due to decades old civil rights laws. So why do we have to keep paying for the sins of the past to people who were never affected by it. Affirmative action sucks and the only "group" of people whom I would never complain about it going towards is native Americans and even then there has to be limits set at some point. People who pop out kids simply for a government check, that needs to end. Those types are a drain on society and a drain on the resources that those truly in need need. Multigenerational welfare families need to end. They too are a drain on everybody. People who go through 99 weeks of unemployment, which is also absurd and demotivational, and don't get a job and then find a way to get more government assistance had better have a damn good reason for doing so rather than just because they can. These types of things need reformed. Nobody wants to be rid of entitlements. It's just that if you don't need it then you aren't entitled to it. It must be purely circumstantial and within good reason. I believe that if you are between 18-65ish in general good health there is absolutely no reason to steal because if you're physically and mentally able and you are knowingly applying for benefits due to outright laziness and a warped sense if entitlement then you are stealing and I know there are circumstances when the Feds will catch you and make you pay it back but those incidences are far to few compared to the amount of waste they could be eliminating from the get go. It's about reform, not eliminating the program.

I agree with what you are saying here. We need to REFORM the waste and inequality in the current system. There are issues that once people get caught into a certain level they are trapped by the system and most get apethetic and just go for the handout. The middle aged unemployed including veterans who don't want to admit "disabilty " just to collect when they want to be working is frustrating.

We need a better unemployment system and job services! People who go beyond their unemployment should be offered some kind of a public service job and some form of training instead of just focusing on the more recently unemployed. The lengthy unemployeed just become too old for labor and less and less qualified as time goes on. When they go to job services for help someone says here's the computer go search the sites, that's no help for the older people who's companies don't exist or their supervisors have passed on-they have no meaningful referrences, job or resume skills.

There should be somekind of a job match waiting list by unemployment time.

Edited by White Unicorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its still propaganda.. regardless.. and is just a small point in how Americans have been brainwashed with the socialism issue.. the rest of the first world just doesnt understand this American socialism issue.. its complete brainwashing..

yes, i know Michael Moore is anti republicans.. smart guy!

Just to clear this up America was the first first world country and all other countries were rated on how we have it here in america. So we understand why the rest of the world sees no problem with slipping back to the whole ruling elite thing that comes with socialism. But, we in america threw off those shackles along time ago and weren't raised that way. So their are some of us(the number seems to be getting smaller) that has a problem with what the rest of the world thinks is O.K.. Our great experiment was not set up on the european model but on a whole new train of thought that doesn't mesh well with socialism. where a man can decide his own destiny and become a ruler despite questionable lineage and educational background.

Edited by MiskatonicGrad
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you are saying here. We need to REFORM the waste and inequality in the current system. There are issues that once people get caught into a certain level they are trapped by the system and most get apethetic and just go for the handout. The middle aged unemployed including veterans who don't want to admit "disabilty " just to collect when they want to be working is frustrating.

We need a better unemployment system and job services! People who go beyond their unemployment should be offered some kind of a public service job and some form of training instead of just focusing on the more recently unemployed. The lengthy unemployeed just become too old for labor and less and less qualified as time goes on. When they go to job services for help someone says here's the computer go search the sites, that's no help for the older people who's companies don't exist or their supervisors have passed on-they have no meaningful referrences, job or resume skills.

There should be somekind of a job match waiting list by unemployment time.

I like that. Maybe a list of volunteering options. You either pick one or don't pass go. Go back to Mediterranean Avenue and roll the dice again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you are saying here. We need to REFORM the waste and inequality in the current system. There are issues that once people get caught into a certain level they are trapped by the system and most get apethetic and just go for the handout. The middle aged unemployed including veterans who don't want to admit "disabilty " just to collect when they want to be working is frustrating.

We need a better unemployment system and job services! People who go beyond their unemployment should be offered some kind of a public service job and some form of training instead of just focusing on the more recently unemployed. The lengthy unemployeed just become too old for labor and less and less qualified as time goes on. When they go to job services for help someone says here's the computer go search the sites, that's no help for the older people who's companies don't exist or their supervisors have passed on-they have no meaningful referrences, job or resume skills.

There should be somekind of a job match waiting list by unemployment time.

the problem imho. with the unemployment system is the don't seem to be motivated to get people employed. what is the insentive if you have alot of people in your area unemployed they just cry for more funding. I have never found a job through an unemployment office( or workforce center in my area) if everyone in america had a job where wouild that leave them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that. Maybe a list of volunteering options. You either pick one or don't pass go. Go back to Mediterranean Avenue and roll the dice again.

Volunteer jobs are becoming popular even in the corporate world but when you're to the point you can't put food on the table or gas in the tank to get there, you can't even do them for the experience, These people end up on assistance or worse. There needs to be a paycheck or even food and gas assistance involved coming from somewhere to help them get by that first crucial point to change their marketability in the job force. It's a complex situation but can be done. I always wondered what happened to all the old "workfare not welfare" plans. Ones that I know of were based only on grants which ended with the councilors being let go when the grants ran out. Cheaper to pay SSI and SNAP I guess. Politicians seem to just look at short term range instead of the effects long term.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem imho. with the unemployment system is the don't seem to be motivated to get people employed. what is the insentive if you have alot of people in your area unemployed they just cry for more funding. I have never found a job through an unemployment office( or workforce center in my area) if everyone in america had a job where wouild that leave them?

I agree they need to be more motivated in finding people jobs. If everyone was becoming employed it would still leave them with the transitional unemployed and paperwork for unemployment benefits. It seems like that's all they do now is qualify people for their unemployment insurance...and a lot of those short term unemployed like applying for jobs they won't get in order to collect more than they would working and some of them even work under the table at the same time! Makes me disgusted when there are long term unemployed with no unemployment benefits not getting help to find a job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.